Author, Subjects, Keywords

Cited Author

 
 
   » By Author or Editor
 » Browse Author by Alphabet
 » By Journal
 » By Subjects
 » Malaysian Journals
 » By Type
 » By Year
 » By Latest Additions
 
 
   » By Author
 » Top 20 Authors
 » Top 20 Article
 » Top Journal Cited
 » Top Article Cited
 » Journal Citation Statistics
 » Usage Since Sept 2007


 
 
 

Login | Create Account

Dose Management in CT Facility

Tsapaki, V., and Rehani, M., (2007) Dose Management in CT Facility. Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal, 3 (2). e43.

[img]
Preview
PDF - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
176Kb

Official URL: http://www.biij.org/2007/2/e43/e43.pdf

Affiliations

Konstantopoulio Agia Olga Hospital, Athens, Greece, Medical Physics Unit
International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria

Abstract

Computed Tomography (CT) examinations have rapidly increased in number over the last few years due to recent advances such as the spiral, multidetector-row, CT fluoroscopy and Positron Emission Tomography (PET)-CT technology. This has resulted in a large increase in collective radiation dose as reported by many international organisations. It is also stated that frequently, image quality in CT exceeds the level required for confident diagnosis. This inevitably results in patient radiation doses that are higher than actually required, as also stressed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding the CT exposure of paediatric and small adult patients. However, the wide range in exposure parameters reported, as well as the different CT applications reveal the difficulty in standardising CT procedures. The purpose of this paper is to review the basic CT principles, outline the recent technological advances and their impact in patient radiation dose and finally suggest methods of radiation dose optimisation.

Item Type:Journal
Keywords:Patient doses in computed tomography (CT), dose management in CT, dose optimisation in CT
Subjects:R Medicine, Dentistry, Pharmacy, Nursing
ID Code:4940

1. Managing patient dose in computed tomography. A report of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP 2000; 30(4):7-45.

2. Aldrich JE, Bilawich AM, Mayo JR. Radiation doses to patients receiving computed tomography examinations in British Columbia. Can Assoc Radiol J 2006; 57(2):79-85.

3. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL et al. Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 2004; 230(3):619-28.

4. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). 2000 report to the General Assembly, Annex D: medical radiation exposures. New York, NY: United Nations, 2000.

5. Brenner DJ, Elliston CD. Estimated radiation risks potentially associated with full-body CT screening. Radiology 2004; 232(3):735-8.

6. Rehani MM, Berry M. Radiation doses in computed tomography. The increasing doses of radiation need to be controlled. BMJ 2000; 320(7235):593-4.

7. Berrington de Gonzalez A, Darby S. Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. Lancet 2004; 363(9406):345-51.

8. Dixon AK, Dendy P. Spiral CT: how much does radiation dose matter? Lancet 1998; 352(9134):1082-3.

9. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Managing Patient Dose in Computed Tomography. Pergamon, 2000. (Annals of ICRP; 84).

10. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Reducing the radiation risk from Computed Tomography for paediatric and small adult patients [Web Page]. Available at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/safety/110201-ct.html.

11. Mettler FA Jr, Wiest PW, Locken JA et al. CT scanning: patterns of use and dose. J Radiol Prot 2000; 20(4):353-9.

12. Staniszewska MA. Evaluation of patient exposure in computerised tomogram in Poland. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2002; 98(4):437-40.

13. Goddard CC, al-Farsi A. Radiation doses from CT in the Sultanate of Oman. Br J Radiol 1999; 72(863):1073-7.

14. United Kingdom's CT scanner evaluation centre [Web Page]. Available at http://www.impactscan.org.

15. Brix G, Nagel HD, Stamm G et al. Radiation exposure in multislice versus single-slice spiral CT: results of a nationwide survey. Eur Radiol 2003; 13(8):1979-91.

16. Tsapaki V, Aldrich JE, Sharma R et al. Dose reduction in CT while maintaining diagnostic confidence: diagnostic reference levels at routine head, chest, and abdominal CT—IAEAcoordinated research project. Radiology 2006; 240(3):828-34.

17. Greess H, Wolf H, Baum U et al. Dose reduction in computed tomography by attenuation-based on-line modulation of tube current: evaluation of six anatomical regions. Eur Radiol 2000; 10(2):391-4.

18. Huda W, Scalzetti EM, Levin G. Technique factors and image quality as functions of patient weight at abdominal CT. Radiology 2000; 217(2):430-5.

19. Kalra MK, Prasad S, Saini S et al. Clinical comparison of standard-dose and 50% reduced-dose abdominal CT: effect on image quality. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179(5):1101-6.

20. Wildberger JE, Mahnken AH, Schmitz-Rode T et al. Individually adapted examination protocols for reduction of radiation exposure in chest CT. Invest Radiol 2001; 36(10):604-11.

21. Prasad SR, Wittram C, Shepard JA et al. Standard-dose and 50%- reduced-dose chest CT: comparing the effect on image quality. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179(2):461-5.

22. European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for Computed Tomography. Brussels: EC, 1999; EUR 16262.

23. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Optimisation of the radiological protection of patients undergoing radiography, fluoroscopy and computed tomography. Vienna, 2004; IAEATECDOC- 1423.

24. Hatziioannou K, Papanastassiou E, Delichas M et al. A contribution to the establishment of diagnostic reference levels in CT. Br J Radiol 2003; 76(908):541-5.

25. Clarke J, Cranley K, Robinson J et al. Application of draft European Commission reference levels to a regional CT dose survey. Br J Radiol 2000; 73(865):43-50.

26. Tsapaki V, Kottou S, Papadimitriou D. Application of European Commission reference dose levels in CT examinations in Crete, Greece. Br J Radiol 2001; 74(885):836-40.

27. Papadimitriou D, Perris A, Manetou A et al. A survey of 14 computed tomography scanners in Greece and 32 scanners in Italy. Examination frequencies, dose reference values, effective doses and doses to organs. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2003; 104(1):47-53.

28. 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP 1991; 21(1-3):1-201.

29. Jones DG, Shrimpton PC. Survey of CT practice in the UK. Part 3: normalized organ doses calculated using Monte Carlo techniques. Chilton: NRPB, 1991; NRPB-R250.

30. Electrotechnical Commission. Medical Electrical Equipment-Part 2-44. Particular requirements for the safety of equipment for CT. Geneva: IEC, 1999; 60601-2-44. (Electrotechnical Commission Standard.

31. Shrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Lewes MA et al. Doses from computed Tomography Examinations in the UK – 2003 Review. National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB); NRPB-W67.

32. Kopp AF, Heuschmid M, Claussen CD. Multidetector helical CT of the liver for tumor detection and characterization. Eur Radiol 2002; 12(4):745-52.

33. Fearon T, Vucich J. Pediatric patient exposures from CT examinations: GE CT/T 9800 scanner. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1985; 144(4):805-9.

34. Kamel IR, Hernandez RJ, Martin JE et al. Radiation dose reduction in CT of the pediatric pelvis. Radiology 1994; 190(3):683-7.

35. Lucaya J, Piqueras J, Garcia-Pena P et al. Low-dose highresolution CT of the chest in children and young adults: dose, cooperation, artifact incidence, and image quality. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 175(4):985-92.

36. Aldrich JE, Chang SD, Bilawich AM et al. Radiation dose in abdominal computed tomography: the role of patient size and the selection of tube current. Can Assoc Radiol J 2006; 57(3):152-8.

37. Teeuwisse WM, Geleijns J, Broerse JJ et al. Patient and staff dose during CT guided biopsy, drainage and coagulation. Br J Radiol 2001; 74(884):720-6.

38. Tsapaki V, Tsalafoutas J, Gorantonaki A et al. Effective dose and skin dose during CT-guided biopsy procedures. Eur Radiol 2006; 16(S3):C60.

39. Buls N, Pages J, de Mey J et al. Evaluation of patient and staff doses during various CT fluoroscopy guided interventions. Health Phys 2003; 85(2):165-73.

40. Carlson SK, Bender CE, Classic KL et al. Benefits and safety of CT fluoroscopy in interventional radiologic procedures. Radiology 2001; 219(2):515-20.

41. Nickoloff EL, Khandji A, Dutta A. Radiation doses during CT fluoroscopy. Health Phys 2000; 79(6):675-81.

42. Nawfel RD, Judy PF, Silverman SG et al. Patient and personnel exposure during CT fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures. Radiology 2000; 216(1):180-4.

43. Wu TH, Chu TC, Huang YH et al. A positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) acquisition protocol for CT radiation dose optimization. Nucl Med Commun 2005; 26(4):323-30.

44. Brix G, Lechel U, Glatting G et al. Radiation exposure of patients undergoing whole-body dual-modality 18F-FDG PET/CT examinations. J Nucl Med 2005; 46(4):608-13.

45. Council Directive 97/43, Euratom 30-June-1997 on Health protection of individuals against the dangers of ionizing radiation in relation to medical exposure. 1997; O.J. No. L 180.

46. International Atomic Energy Agency. International Basic Safety Standards for Protection against Ionizing Radiation and for the Safety of Radiation Sources. Vienna: IAEA, 1996. (IAEA Safety Series; 115).

47. Zoetelief J, Geleijns J. Patient doses in spiral CT. Br J Radiol 1998; 71(846):584-6.

48. Royal College of Radiologists. Making the best use of a department of clinical radiology. 4th edition. London: RCR, 1998.

49. Beaconsfield T, Nicholson R, Thornton A et al. Would thyroid and breast shielding be beneficial in CT of the head? Eur Radiol 1998; 8(4):664-7.

50. Hidajat N, Schroder RJ, Vogl T et al. [The efficacy of lead shielding in patient dosage reduction in computed tomography]. Rofo 1996; 165(5):462-5.

51. Takahashi M, Maguire WM, Ashtari M et al. Low-dose spiral computed tomography of the thorax: comparison with the standard-dose technique. Invest Radiol 1998; 33(2):68-73.

52. Naidich DP, Marshall CH, Gribbin C et al. Low-dose CT of the lungs: preliminary observations. Radiology 1990; 175(3):729-31.

53. Hidajat N, Wolf M, Nunnenmann A et al. Survey of conventional and spiral CT doses. Med Phys 2001; 218:395-401.

54. Itoh S, Koyama S, Ikeda M et al. Further reduction of radiation dose in helical CT for lung cancer screening using small tube current and a newly designed filter. J Thorac Imaging 2001; 16(2):81-8.

55. Toth TL. Dose reduction opportunities for CT scanners. Pediatr Radiol 2002; 32(4):261-7.

56. Kalra MK, Wittram C, Maher MM et al. Can noise reduction filters improve low-radiation-dose chest CT images? Pilot study. Radiology 2003; 228(1):257-64.

57. Antoch G, Kuehl H, Kanja J et al. Dual-modality PET/CT scanning with negative oral contrast agent to avoid artifacts: introduction and evaluation. Radiology 2004; 230(3):879-85.

58. Dizendorf E, Hany TF, Buck A et al. Cause and magnitude of the error induced by oral CT contrast agent in CT-based attenuation correction of PET emission studies. J Nucl Med 2003; 44(5):732-8.

59. Lee CI, Haims AH, Monico EP et al. Diagnostic CT scans: assessment of patient, physician, and radiologist awareness of radiation dose and possible risks. Radiology 2004; 231(2):393-8.

60. Prokop M. Cancer screening with CT: dose controversy. Eur Radiol 2005; 15 Suppl 4:D55-61.

Repository Staff Only: item control page
 
 
 
 
 
 
© Copyright 2007 MyAIS Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, University of Malaya – All Rights Reserved. Malaysian Abstracting and Indexing System is powered by EPrints 3 which is developed by the School of Electronics and Computer Science at the University of Southampton. More information and software credits.